As some readers will remember, on
1 December 2002, the New York Times published an article by one of their senior reporters,
the Head of their Hong Kong Bureau, Keith Bradsher. The well-written article, enhanced by
photographs and full of interest and exotic appeal was titled 'A Friend in India to All
the World'. It introduced to American readers the prominent Hindu guru, Sathya Sai Baba,
on the occasion of a courtesy visit to his ashram by the new Muslim President of India, Dr
Kalam.

This very positive presentation of
the spiritual leader and his devotees to the American public, endorsed by the name and
prestige of the New York Times (motto: 'All the News that's Fit to Print') was extremely
simpatico.

Unfortunately, the colourful
description and background information offered by Bradsher (including explanations by the
guru's close devotees), was incomplete and therefore potentially misleading to the
newspaper's readers. What Bradsher had failed to mention, and perhaps did not even
research, was that, in spite of Sathya Sai Baba's undisputed appeal, massive charisma, and
beneficent charitable Trust, he has become the focus of a great deal of media and Internet
controversy and allegations over the past three years.

The allegations (mainly of sexual
misconduct) and the controversies surrounding this guru's claims to be God on Earth have
surfaced and proliferated on the Internet. The sexual (and other) allegations have been
aired in newspapers like the British Times and Daily Telegraph as well as
other newspapers and magazines in India, Canada, Holland, Scandinavia, Argentina,
Australia, and Colombia, and also in TV documentaries in several countries. As a result of
this snowballing publicity, many devotees have renounced their guru - some, including this
writer, to investigate and publicise anomalies surrounding Sathya Sai Baba and the story
of his Mission.

Like most other information these
days, news of these controversies, including a Petition for further investigation of the
sexual allegations against this guru, is freely available on the Internet to any surfer.
It seems that the New York Times' Mr Bradsher (a Pulitzer Prize finalist) either
failed to take this basic research step or chose to ignore or dismiss the controversy and
rely on what he found out and was officially told at the ashram in India.

For those aware of these current
controversies, the sudden appearance in such a prestigious American newspaper of this
bland and one-sided report was almost unbelievable. Several (perhaps many) letters were
sent from readers in several countries to the NYT Executive Editor and other officers,
pointing out the peculiar lack of balance of the article and the inappropriateness of the
NYT's tacit endorsement of the guru Sathya Sai Baba at a time when his Organisation is
engaged in damage control operations, including publicity and propaganda initiatives which
have been documented on the Internet.

As far as I am aware, these
letters were ignored by the Editors of the NYT and no public comment was made on this
reporting lapse. Was any internal action taken? We do not know.

And now, in May 2003, in the wake
of a spectacular and unique reporting fiasco of serial misconduct (apparently mainly
involving invention and plagiarism) over a lengthy period by one of the NYT junior
reporters, Jayson Blair, the newspaper's readers and the general public are finally
piecing together a picture of lapses or breakdowns in internal communications between NYT
executives and other staff. Following an allegedly stormy meeting with the angry and
embarrassed newsroom staff on 14 May, the Executive Editor of the NYT is quoted as
admitting that "I was guilty of a failure of vigilance that, since I sit in this
chair where the buck stops, I should have prevented." (New York Times, 15 May
2003) The Executive Editor also referred to the accusation by some of his own journalists
and staff that he was "inaccessible and arrogant". The press is hinting that the
rumblings and criticisms within the NYT have still not subsided and may well produce
further internal upheavals.

Following a not unfamiliar media
pattern, the junior journalist, although professionally disgraced, has now rocketed to
instant fame, with fortune surely close on its heels with a bestselling book and other
media "goodies" already being foreshadowed. The malfeasance (and the
"malefactor"), now in the open and exhaustively exposed over the past two weeks,
has been replaced as a news topic by a deeper and more important analysis of how such an
extensive scandal came to besmirch such a prestigious American media establishment.
According to recent media reports, the number and magnitude of the offences allegedly
committed by the 27 year-old Blair suggest that one or two prominent NYT executives, and
parts of the management system itself, may also have to share some of the overall
responsibility for the lapses in professional standards. Murmurings about the internal NYT
investigation of 'other cases' of unsatisfactory journalism and communication breakdowns
are also beginning to be heard and eagerly followed up by the press.

Given this hugely embarrassing
scandal and the questions which are now being asked, it is opportune to redirect attention
to the New York Times' apparent lack of executive concern over some readers'
displeasure at the Bradsher peccadillo in December, especially since current journalistic
whispers point to the possibility of further revelations of sloppy work by other NYT
reporters or inappropriate executive influence of some sort or other. If this does turn
out to be the case, then the long-suffering public will recognise that they have just
witnessed yet another egregious case of a large corporation (media, banks - especially the
banks! - , and businesses) sweeping under the carpet inconvenient critical communications
from its customers and its own staff, or spending millions of dollars on defensive Supreme
Court cases - until somehow the truth seeps or bursts out. Then comes, if not a financial
crash, a media feeding frenzy of schadenfreude, as with the New York Times case,
over a no longer avoidable public confession of the breaching of standards, wrongdoing, or
errors, followed by internal investigations and the eventual promises by the spin doctors
that the faults in the management system have been rectified and "It can't happen
again".

Bearing in mind this recent NYT
affair, it will be interesting to see how much longer the officers of the Organisation
that bears SSB's name will be able to continue to sweep under the carpet inconvenient news
and publicity while simultaneously advising trusting devotes to ignore it.